Adobe Systems' chief executive is taking his company more deeply into the slow-growth enterprise software market. His company's products continue to command top dollar while other desktop software prices plummet. In fact, the company last spring reported its most profitable quarter ever. And he's--so far--managed to stay friends with Microsoft while simultaneously trouncing the world's largest software maker in the electronic-document market.
There are some clouds on the horizon, of course. Microsoft will--someday--get it right. And competitors to some of Adobe's most popular products are appearing from the open-source community, with more sure to come.
But Chizen, who took over as CEO from company founder John Warnock back in 2000, has a plan. He spoke with CNET News.com about industry consolidation and Linux on the desktop.
Q: Many people have come to expect software to be free or very inexpensive. How have you avoided that trend, and do you think that will last?
A: I get a lot of questions about what open source means to Adobe, and the reality is there have been a number of products out in the open-source marketplace that have competed with products like Photoshop, Illustrator and PostScript, and others. Yet customers are willing to pay for innovation and quality...I think that's what has enabled us to do well and grow as a company, unlike some of our competitors. Clearly, the software industry is consolidating, and it's great that Adobe is in a place where we don't have to consolidate.
We would like to think so.
They do. I think a lot has to do with how rapidly broadband capabilities increase. So at today's speeds, the power on the desktop is significantly greater than what kind of capability you could get by having an application that runs on a host, vis-a-vis a broadband connection. In fact, we have a service today up in Adobe.com called "create PDF online" where people send us their document and we convert it to PDF (Portable Document Format). That does well because it's pretty simple and doesn't require a lot of bandwidth...Three, four, five years from now, that will change, and you will see more and more applications that can be host-based.
Adobe has been making a push to increase its presence in enterprises. Acrobat and Portable Document Format are a big part of that plan. Can give me an update on how that's progressing?
There are two ways that we will make PDF more of an enterprise play. One continues to be at the desktop with Acrobat...A second way is clearly with our server products, where we have specific products to help with the creation of PDF documents, the business process rules, and management of the documents, as well as the extraction of information from those documents.
How did you change the mind-set within Adobe toward catering to big companies? Isn't that a major shift for you?
Well, it's a shift. This is going to sound strange at first, but I think about a company like Honda and what they were able to do over time. They build great engines and have an excellent manufacturing processes. That's their core competency, and they figured out how to grow from a lawn tools company to a motor scooter company to a motorcycle company to a small-car manufacturer, to a large-car manufacturer, to luxury-car manufacturer. And now they're manufacturing jet engines and they're working with GE on a small personal aircraft.
Well, the same is kind of true with Adobe. We went from being a provider of PostScript and printing systems to providing solutions for creative professionals...for digital photography, and now we're providing solutions to the enterprise. We've had to change some of the ways in which we sell; we've had to change the way we do business in terms of contracts, financial terms, partnerships, how we advertise our products. But quite frankly it's no different than the
See more CNET content tagged:
Bruce Chizen,
Adobe Systems Inc.,
Adobe PDF,
open source,
desktop software
A lot of Canadian magazines decided they were going to go "upmarket" and sell where the money was. Many failed in the process, not realizing that while the up market has deep pockets, that same market is much more discerning and careful with its money. It is more deep-pocketed but also much smaller in practice in terms of total sales.
What hints at this for Adobe is the inexplicable dropping of older Windows version support from Adobe Reader 7 as well as the shrinking number of platforms that Reader is available for. You don't grow the use of an expensive proprietary format by limiting its use to essentially what the boys in Redmond want your software to run on.
In this respect Adobe's supposedly opposed-to-MS document stance seems more a chimera than fact. One senses this is a case of Adobe getting its sandbox to play in. It seems to me more of an Adobe-MS symbiotic relationship. Adobe and MS are enjoying good profits.
Also, Acrobat Reader has a serious deficiency in that Boolean searches with comiled Acrobat-generated indexes seem to return meaningful results only across documents and not withinn a single document. This makes using Adobe's Reader Advanced search feature (the Indexed search) a weak tool for book indexing/searching--hardly a good thing when you want to grow the use of the format in a serious way.
Profit is great, but we also still need wide compatibility across all older Windows, and meaningful Search functionality. These areas of deficiency, and Adobe's focus on the "enterprise" are what make Adobe a potential sitting duck.
Windows and Mac Requirements...
(2005) Acrobat v7.0: Win 2K,XP or Mac 10.2.8 and up.
(2003) Acrobat v6.01: Win 98,Me,NT,2K,XP or MacOS 10.2.2 and up.
(2001) Acrobat v5.1: Win 98,Me,NT,2K,XP or Mac 9.1 and up.
(1999) Acrobat v4.05: Win 95,98,NT (Not sure about Mac)
In other words, Adobe has consistently kept their software compliant with five year old Windows, although Macs tended to get phased out faster (OSX 10.0 came out in 2000, I think.)
Also, it should be mentioned that Acrobat (paid-for full version, not the free Reader) has usually been set to build PDF's compatible with the PREVIOUS version by default. If your version wasn't set that way, it could be arranged in 3 clicks or less.
I own an iMac that I bought in 1999. I upgraded it to OS 10.2.8 (as far as it will go) and plan to keep using it for a couple more years. My complaint with Adobe is not that they are dropping 5 and 7 year old operating systems. (I did that with my own computer.) I think they hang on to older OS's better than many other vendors.
My problem with Adobe is that the last decent version of Acrobat and Reader for Windows was version 5. V6 (patched and unpatched) simply cannot open some v3 and v4 PDF's correctly, and editing in Acrobat v6 is awkward at best, and impossible at worst. I often move to a PC with v5 installed to make changes. (I've heard that v6 crashes on some people, but I've never had that problem myself.)
I suspect they'll fix the usability problems in v7 or v8, and will keep Reader free. And since they are fairly cross-platform, there's no worry about that problem.
Adobe will be around for quite awhile.
a shop with 10 designers and no budget could easily build pc workstations and servers for far less than a stock/shelf system (dell, ibm, etc). cut the cost of windows from the equation and you just saved a lot of cash that can be spent on better things.
if adobe ports their flagship software, these small design shops could buy linux versions and not only benefit from stability, but still save money.
The bottom line is that the cost of hardware is nill compared to the cost of staffing employees. The cheapest product will be the one people can get work done faster on.
Rather the user (ie. Graphics designer or publisher) dictating what software tools are needed, Adobe has been dictating what and how one should do their workflow. At the expense of costly (and frequently buggy) software updates.
Will users comply when Adobe mandates that "all" its applications must connect to Adobe-online to run? We see this with licensing, but when all users of Adobe applications are on high-speed lines, they will use the old convention of Terminal-Mainframe to run applications. You'll have a shell, but the main app will be running at Adobe.
You don't own the software, you lease it. Updates are free (repairs) and upgrades cost you (things we left out but you'll pay to have).
But as folks liken to freeware (opensource), its a matter of time before someone knocks them off their high horse (gotta love cliches).
Over the years Acrobat has gone from a small, efficient reader application to this massive bloated pig and a bigger hit to productivity than espn.com. It's this that will drive people to alternatives, ANY alternatives.
For creating basic PDF files I like Macromedia FlashPaper 2. It is very quick and works quite well for that.
Robert
I will take PDF any day. I user version 7 and frankly I don't have any problems with it.
OS does not need to replace products of the like that Adobe offers and the OS uptakers will want to use the well polished Adobe suite for their own pleasure.
I feel OS is not here to take over proprietary software and turn a billion dollar industry into a million one but create entirly new markets like the Free Virtual Personal Online Desktop http://www.cosmopod.com is providing.
Granted, sensationalized stories come up now and then that Adobe has "abandoned Mac users" or that Adobe "hates Windows." As any intelligent person knows, this is all rubbish and melodrama over Adobe's necessary marketing and development responses to necessary marketing or development changes at another company (like Apple or Microsoft).
These occassional histrionics aside, Adobe has done a masterful job of navigating away from a platform dependence or even implied preference. That strategy will serve Adobe Systems, Inc. well in the long run because it means Adobe and its products will thrive regardless of whether Mac suddenly shifts into the dominant platform in the market and whether Windows beats OS X to a 128-bit OS. Most relevant to this thread is the fact that Adobe's strategy also gives the San Jose company the flexibility and freedom to embrace Linux if and when that time comes.
Like its flagship product namesake, Adobe is an acrobat, able to twist and turn with the greatest of ease in response to changes in the precariously strung high-wire world of operating systems.
Adobe's applications and technologies run on someone else's operating system, but Adobe's future does not depend on anyone's operating system.
systems that I consult we have found and been looking for
alternatives for Adobe products. Yes that is right. Why because
Adobe continues to shun the Mac community by not having a
server products for Mac OS. Yes one of the better server setups
out there today is an Apple Xserve running Mac OS X Server. Yet
Adobe does not have a product that runs in that environment.
They would much rather produce a server product for Microsoft
Windows XP client than a server product for Mac OS X Server.
Don't be fooled by the lack of a Server product Adobe
themselves will not produce a server product not because they
can not but they will not. I have contacted them time and time
again about this and everytime they are not concerned about
prodcuing anything for the Mac.
Secondly, most of the Mac applications are lesser products with
lesser features and yet Adobe expects me to pay for the
developement of Windows only products and features. No that
isn't happening and no I will not pay. And that is all I have to say
about that.
X, where Adobe's product is not compatible. The Adobe product
in question is Adobe Graphics Server. For some reason they
haven't made it for Mac OS X - only Windows and Solaris.
It's digital asset management software called Image Portal X.
It utilizes a QuickTime image processing engine instead of AGS,
which does about 90% of what AGS can do. When Core Imaging
comes available with Apple's release of Tiger we'll incorporate
that for this product.
We're featuring it on our homepage right now...
http://www.netx.net/
think. With Tiger, OS X along with Core Image/Video will
introduce programmers to pre-built "Image Units" that will make
the creation of graphics manipulation apps soooo much easier.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/coreimage.html
Adobe's short-lived "PC Preferred" campaign was a slap in the
face to Apple. Since then, we've seen numerous updates to Final
Cut, Apples category killer Non Linear Video Editor, and Motion
- which will soon to do After Effects what Final Cut did to
Premiere. Adobe has yet to leverage Cocoa, and it's really
beginning to show - their apps lack the polish of a true OS X
experience. Frustrated with Acrobat Reader? Ditch it! Preview
is sooooooo much faster - no longer do I dread getting a PDF.
I'm not trying to knock Apples goal to give consumers good software for a good price, but business is politics and you can't just kick the people you rely on and expect them to take it. Look as what sun has done. They get a partner then publicly embaris them and then loose them.
Hey, I still like Apple and Adobe.
> not having a server products for Mac OS.
Well "boo hoo". The server products are aimed at the Enterprise market. How many Fortune 1000 companies run there corporate ERP systems on Macs? Answer: 1 - Apple. :) When Macs start making inroads on Wall Street, then Adobe will invest in them.
> They would much rather produce a server
> product for Microsoft Windows XP client than a
> server product for Mac OS X Server.
If that's a surpise to you then so will this be: Adobe would much rather make money than lose money. Just as the article says, Adobe is following the money, that's all. Adobe loves Macs, but they only have 10% of the market. It costs the same to develop software for the Mac as it does for Windows. If you have a to invest money in something would you invest in somthing with a 10% return or a 90% return?
There are a few niche markets where Mac have enough marketshare to warrant the investment (Creative Professional market is one of them), but Financial, Manufacturing and Insurance markets just aren't saturated with enough Macs to make it worthwhile.
> I have contacted them time and time again
> about this and everytime they are not
> concerned about prodcuing anything for the Mac.
Again, "boo hoo". You're in a niche market. That has advantages and disadvantages. Deal with it.
> Secondly, most of the Mac applications are
> lesser products with lesser features and yet
> Adobe expects me to pay for the developement
> of Windows only products and features.
Lesser returns = lesser investment = lesser features. It's a vicious cycle, but that's business. Like the article said, Adobe is following the money.
mail+users/2100-1038_3-5587906.html?
part=rss&tag=5587315&subj=news
On the server end, that is a different story. Linux and Mac-OSX server are different beasts, but each has its own good points. If MacOS-X Server ever jumps from its very reasonable price, I expect Linux will shortly eat its lunch in the media server market for creative organizations.
There's even more response to this story and its reader comments on the Design Weblog.
http://design.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000703033069/
company, InfoPage, Japan, which is 99% Mac, 99% FrameMaker,
has been very loyal to Adobe. We?ve bought and regularly
upgraded English and Japanese versions of Adobe FrameMaker,
Adobe PageMaker, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe
Acrobat, Adobe PostScript products, Adobe Type 1 Roman fonts,
Adobe Japanese fonts (plus: Adobe ATM Deluxe, Adobe PageMill,
Adobe SiteMill, Adobe Streamline, Adobe Dimensions, Adobe
ScreenReady, and Adobe SuperPaint).
And how does Mr. Chizen reward us for our loyalty? He kills off
our most important application - Mac FrameMaker! (Adobe
continues to make it for Windows and Solaris.) And what does he
suggest we do? Ditch the Mac and all our Mac software, buy a
bunch of Windows PCs, and pay full price again for Windows
versions of all our other Adobe applications. I guess the phrase
?important customer? means something else in Adobe?s
corporate dictionary.
In case you?re wondering, FrameMaker is a vertical app for
producing long, technical documents. It?s used by
manufacturers around the world, including Microsoft Press.
Adobe use it and are shifting from Mac to Solaris. Apple uses it
and, like the rest of us, is currently running it in the Classic
environment. (The iPod Shuffle user guide was made with
FrameMaker 6.0 running in Classic.)
Currently, there is no alternative on Mac OS X. Our options are:
1) Stay with FrameMaker on Mac OS 9 while other Mac users
enjoy the power and elegance of Mac OS X. 2) Run FrameMaker
in Mac OS X?s Classic environment, which works, but no doubt
Apple will one day end-of-life Classic. 3) Cross-grade to
Windows, the cost of which is prohibitive, not to mention the
security risks, viruses, spyware, and so on.
If you are a Mac FrameMaker user who?s affected by Adobe?s
decision to discontinue Mac FrameMaker, please join almost
3,000 other disenfranchised Adobe customers by signing the
FrameMaker for Mac OS X petition. More at <http://
www.infopage.net/fmforosx/>.
When Adobe learns to communicate openly and honestly with all the users of its products, Mr. Chizen might have something to say one is ready to believe.
Michael Meyer
arena. Adobe bought the product(s), but never acquired the
intelligence to properly sell and maintain the products.
Framemaker is one, PageMaker and SuperPaint are two other
(from Aldus).
Adobe claims that InDesign is the PageMaker repkacement in
OSX is InDesign. Obviously, no one at Adobe has experience in
running both programs. So PageMaker is dead (runs like a sick
dog in Classic, just plain slow in OS 9.1, and I'm looking for a
non-Adobe replacement.
Create from StoneWorks seems to be a real winner to take
PageMaker's place. Preview opens PDF's, and Create and Word
make them, so Acrobat has been trashed. Next, Illustrator needs
to go..The rest of Adobe's stable is not worth considering.
Maybe if you are into supercomplex document production,
Adobe's products have some merit, but my jobs are much less
complex and I don't neeed howitzers to go rabbit hunting.
You should really check your facts before you try to blast something.
Aldus, the creator of PageMaker, didn't have the "intelligence" to maintain it either. Long before Adobe offered to buy Paul Brainard's Aldus, Brainard and co. realized that PageMaker's codebase was broken and unfixable. Specifically, during the fast and furious software development of the Eighties, Aldus had failed to properly comment its code or even write clean code. PageMaker's code base was a mess from day one, and, by the time Adobe acquired it in 1994, it was all but untouchable.
THAT is why Aldus began building InDesign. Then codenamed K2, InDesign was Aldus's replacement to PageMaker. And K2 was the crown jewel in the acquisition of Aldus.
Just as an FYI, now, 12 years after Aldus began building InDesign, some of the same people who originally developed PageMaker under Paul Brainard continue to work for Adobe on PageMaker.
FrameMaker on the Mac, to answer you and Michael Meyer, ceased development because the number of people purchasing it didn't justify the costs of continued development. Of the alleged 3000 people Meyer claims have petitioned Adobe to upgrade the product, how many actually bought FrameMaker 6? What about 6.5?
At the time Adobe made the announcement that Frame development on the Mac would cease, most Mac Frame users were still using FrameMaker 5 despite the availability of 6 and 6.5 for years.
If you don't buy the upgrades, the company doesn't know you're out there. Moreover, if you don't buy the upgrades, you don't allow the company to make return on its development investment.
You made your bed, now lie in it.
And, as far as SuperPaint, it was a consumer-level product. Adobe unilaterally moved away from consumer products for a long time--on ALL operating systems--to focus on what Adobe does best: Professional grade products.
If you don't want or need Photoshop's professional features, quit whining and go get GIMP.
If you're too frightened to try InDesign, stick with PageMaker in classic.
If FrameMaker on Mac means so much to you, stop ******** and ask Adobe nicely. Keep going with your petition, but keep in mind that Adobe is a company that must see a return on investment to keep a product alive. If you don't let Adobe know you're out there by purchasing the upgrades, Adobe will think you aren't out there.
http://www.quarkvsindesign.com/about-war.php
much of what they have ever said was right.
consistent with their actions. Specifically, dropping Framemaker
for Mac has devastated me. This communicates that Mac users
are less important, and makes the claim that they are seem
hollow and patronizing. Tell the truth, don't shine us on!
- Adobe is irrelevant
-
by skellener
April 20, 2005 5:31 PM PDT
- There are tons of great apps out there other than Abobe's
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 35 Comments >>expensive bloatwear. Now that Macromedia will be devoured
(sorta Like Coke devouring Pepsi) I think it is a perfect
opportunity for the smaller developers to step up and show the
world how great apps run!
Instead of Photoshop try Gimp Shop
http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241
Instead on InDesign and Illustrator try Create
http://www.stone.com/Create/Create.html
Instead of Streamline try Silhouette
http://www.silhouetteonline.com
Then end is near for Adobe. Watch how they suffer through this
merger with layoffs and a shrinking of user base (no they will
not grow the base with Macromedia users). Nothing good ever
comes from these massive mergers. This will be no exception.